Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
M/S. R.P. Milkmade Products Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Acit, New Delhi on 6 January, 2017
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH: 'F' NEW DELHI
BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No. 646/Del/2012
Assessment Year: 2008-09
R.P.Milkmade Products Pvt. Ltd, Vs. ACIT, Circle-15(1), C.R. Building,
3/16, West Patel Nagar, New New Delhi
Delhi
PAN : AAACR7284A
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by None
Respondent by Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.DR
Date of hearing 05.01.2017
Date of pronouncement 06.01.2017
ORDER
PER O.P. KANT, A.M.:
This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-XVIII, New Delhi, dated 07.11.2011 for assessment year 2008-09.
2. In this case, the notice was sent to the assessee for hearing by Regd. AD Post for 05.01.2017 at the address mentioned in Form No. 36 vide Column No. 10, but neither the assessee nor his Authorized Representative attended the hearing and also not filed any application for adjournment. It is, thus, inferred that the assessee is not interested in prosecution of his appeal, therefore, in our considered opinion, no useful purpose would be served to send the notice again and again on the same address.
3. Considering the facts of the case and keeping in view the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as were 2 ITA No. 646/Del./2012 AY: 2008-09 considered in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38 ITD 320)(Del), the assessee's appeal is liable to be dismissed for want of prosecution.
3. The Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) has held as under:
"if the party, at whose instance the reference is made, fails 'to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of the paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference. "
4. Similarly, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) returned the reference unanswered since the assessee remained absent and there was not any assistance from the assessee.
5. Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) held that the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same.
6. Respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited supra, we dismiss the above appeal for non-prosecution. Before parting, we add that in case the assessee is serious in pursuing the appeal filed, then it would be at liberty to pray for a recall of this order by moving an appropriate application.
7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for non- prosecution.
The decision is pronounced in the open court on 6th January, 2017.
Sd/- Sd/-
(H.S. SIDHU) (O.P. KANT)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 6th January, 2017.
Laptop/-
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(A)
5. DR
Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi